Attended my first Alabama Open Carry meeting tonight.

This is a discussion on Attended my first Alabama Open Carry meeting tonight. within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; We had a good meeting tonight for Alabama Open Carry group where we were joined by the Tuscaloosa Police Chief who answered many of our ...

Attended my first Alabama Open Carry meeting tonight.

We had a good meeting tonight for Alabama Open Carry group where we were joined by the Tuscaloosa Police Chief who answered many of our questions and we were able to discuss opinions and procedures for the open carrying of a firearm. I found it very informative. We had the largest turnout, but we need to find ways to educate the general citizenry and law enforcement officers. I plan to write down some ideas of my own, but I am interested to know what some of you think would be good ways to do so.

The reason for challenging anyone who open carries is to be sure they are legally allowed to carry a weapon. Convicted fellons are not allowed to own a gun. That was clear in the newspaper article.

That may be so, but, still is unjustified. Should they detain and run id on everyone that is hunting to see if they are a felon? Should they stop people driving just to check id? Should they stop people with children to see if they are sex offenders? The SCOTUS has ruled that the mere presense of a firearm is not grounds for a (terry) stop.

Where do we draw the line? I'm all for being polite... to those who are polite to me. Not so much to those who DEMAND beyond what is right and required.

They actually do stop people to check for valid license and up to date insurance. It is justified by ensurring people are OBEYING the law. I don't mind showing an officer my ID and proving I am a responsible law abiding citizen. The more people that comply with this, the easier and faster officers will become used to it and there will be fewer checks. But the more people who remain DEFIANT and do not comply, make it harder on the rest of us and potentially threaten the outcome of the understanding of the law. I have been checked by a cop and it takes no longer than 5 minutes if you comply and go on your way. If you argue and defy the officer, it may take longer and cause you to be arrested for disorderly conduct.

NO, they don't stop and just check drivers for driver licenses. There has to be some sort of infraction to justify a stop. Even if they just make up one out of thin air.

As such, there would have to be some sort of infraction to warrant stopping someone who is carrying. A legal activity does not warrant stopping. There has to be "suspicion". The mere presense of a firearm does not warrant suspicion as it is a legal activity.

As I said, I don't mind a consensual encounter. I would identify myself as a courtesy to an officer that is also polite and inquiring. I will not be baited and I will not be demanded. Arrested for disorderly? You better look up the definition. Does not apply. Now, realize I am from Idaho and there is no "stop and identify" law here. If there is in AL I would also comply.

So,a man walks down your street OCing,are you concerned? If I walk past an officer and he does'nt ? me about my OCed weapon,then he is negligible,I would'nt mind being ? at all about my weapon or intentions,it seems to me the only ones who have a problem being ? are the ones with a problem with authority.There is no way I would let anyone walk past me without stopping them and saying hi,you can get a lot from that,I wish seeing guns were as common as seeing cell phones,but it's not.

Originally Posted by carracer

NO, they don't stop and just check drivers for driver licenses. There has to be some sort of infraction to justify a stop. Even if they just make up one out of thin air.

As such, there would have to be some sort of infraction to warrant stopping someone who is carrying. A legal activity does not warrant stopping. There has to be "suspicion". The mere presense of a firearm does not warrant suspicion as it is a legal activity.

As I said, I don't mind a consensual encounter. I would identify myself as a courtesy to an officer that is also polite and inquiring. I will not be baited and I will not be demanded. Arrested for disorderly? You better look up the definition. Does not apply. Now, realize I am from Idaho and there is no "stop and identify" law here. If there is in AL I would also comply.

So,a man walks down your street OCing,are you concerned? If I walk past an officer and he does'nt ? me about my OCed weapon,then he is negligible,I would'nt mind being ? at all about my weapon or intentions,it seems to me the only ones who have a problem being ? are the ones with a problem with authority.There is no way I would let anyone walk past me without stopping them and saying hi,you can get a lot from that,I wish seeing guns were as common as seeing cell phones,but it's not.

Huge difference between a casual hi how are you and a let me see your papers approach.
I have no problem with lawful authority. Do police have the legal authority to stop everyone on the street to see if they are legal? Do they have legal authority to stop every car to see if the driver has a license? There is a difference between lawful authority and just someone with a badge imposing his will on you.

So,checking to see if your on the up&up is imposing will? I must have missed that part when I got my Masters in CJ.the same people who complain about not able to o.c without being ? would complain thatthe Police did'nt do any thing when they SEEN A MAN WITH A GUN,and now he's killed 5 people at Micky D's.

So,checking to see if your on the up&up is imposing will? I must have missed that part when I got my Masters in CJ.the same people who complain about not able to o.c without being ? would complain thatthe Police did'nt do any thing when they SEEN A MAN WITH A GUN,and now he's killed 5 people at Micky D's.

Only if it is not within the law. You seemed to have missed my point. If the law allows police to demand to see a permit or license I have no issue with them doing so. If however they do not have the legal authority to do so I have a huge problem with them doing it. Even if they believe their reason for doing so is for the good of the people. Allowing the government and those who represent it to ignore the laws however well intended is a danger to society in the long run.

If checking my papers is allowed by the law you are following the law. If it is not then you are imposing your will. If it is allowed then we should have no problem with those doing it. If we object to the law we should be upset with the law and not those enforcing it.

they actually do stop people to check for valid license and up to date insurance. It is justified by ensurring people are obeying the law. I don't mind showing an officer my id and proving i am a responsible law abiding citizen. the more people that comply with this, the easier and faster officers will become used to it and there will be fewer checks. But the more people who remain defiant and do not comply, make it harder on the rest of us and potentially threaten the outcome of the understanding of the law. I have been checked by a cop and it takes no longer than 5 minutes if you comply and go on your way. If you argue and defy the officer, it may take longer and cause you to be arrested for disorderly conduct.

So,a man walks down your street OCing,are you concerned? If I walk past an officer and he does'nt ? me about my OCed weapon,then he is negligible,I would'nt mind being ? at all about my weapon or intentions,it seems to me the only ones who have a problem being ? are the ones with a problem with authority.There is no way I would let anyone walk past me without stopping them and saying hi,you can get a lot from that,I wish seeing guns were as common as seeing cell phones,but it's not.

So should an officer stop every Mexican on the street to make sure they are legal???

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1996)
“Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only
for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the
meaning of the provision. An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that
it not be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an
automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violationhas occurred.” 517 U.S. at 809-810.